Timberwolf Verses Super Split process time
- Thread starter LoggerDoug
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
BPS. LLC
ArboristSite Operative
I can't say anything about the SS because I don't have one, and have never used one. However, my TW-5 is fast enough. With me at the controls, it takes my son and a buddy to feed the splitter. The 6 way wedge doesn't give them much time to get the next piece on the lift. If you don't have a processor, with either of these splitters, I would think manpower is the key. I mess with my son all the time that I don't want to hear the splitter idle, waiting for wood. If you are splitting good wood, it doesn't need to be run at full throttle and really sips the fuel. I'm willing to bet both of these splitters are good machines.
What sold me on the TW-5 was the log lift and the wedges. I can back my dump trailer right up to the table grate and it pushes the wood right on the trailer. If I'm not hauling it away, I let a pile build up and take the bobcat grapple and pile it up away from the splitter. But then I found that I am different than most in the fact that I don't stack my wood, preferring to handle it as little as possible.
What sold me on the TW-5 was the log lift and the wedges. I can back my dump trailer right up to the table grate and it pushes the wood right on the trailer. If I'm not hauling it away, I let a pile build up and take the bobcat grapple and pile it up away from the splitter. But then I found that I am different than most in the fact that I don't stack my wood, preferring to handle it as little as possible.
BPS. LLC
ArboristSite Operative
Not to hijack the thread here, but I can't see that working. All it takes is one piece catching a little bit and jamming everything up. For example, if I am splitting into a pile and it begins to cover the table, it either pushes the split pieces to the side, or will actually push the splitter forward if the weight of the pile is too great. Since the grate and the trailer bed are nearly flush, I have to stack the wood once it starts jamming up. It will not "pile" itself up on the trailer. I would love to have a conveyor, or have an area that I could excavate to drop my trailer down several feet. I am fortunate to have a bobcat with a grapple bucket. If I didn't have that and a son, I don't think I would do wood!
Your chute would work great if your splitter was elevated and the chute could be sloped down to a trailer. But to load a dump truck, you would almost need some help from mother nature and retaining wall of some sort to get the height.
sawkiller
ArboristSite Operative
I recently built a 4-way wedge for the splitter we made a few years ago for use on the back of the tractor. Last friday I worked it as hard as I could by myself and split about 1 1/3 cord in an hour and a half. Of course I was loading the pieces in the truck and trailer as they came off also. Either way relating this to the topic this was a hickory tree that was about 22" in diameter and stringy as all get out and there is no way I would have wanted to lift these rounds onto a super split or any other splitter for that matter.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
BPS. LLC
ArboristSite Operative
Now with your nearly 15,000 posts in 3+ years, you should be an expert...at least at posting. Sounds like you have a goal, get off the computer and get something done.
.png "Love :heart:")
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
An outfit we used to buy split green wood from had a good system fed by gravity. They cut worked in the woods everyday and delivered 27 finished face cords of wood 5 days/week. Here is how they did it (and still do):
Dad dropped and skidded logs to a landind. The landing was made by digging out an ~10' wide by 5' deep spot in the ground. The dirt from that was piled 6' away and parallel to the hole. The logs were skidded to the top of the mound of dirt where son #1 would block the wood. He set the wood on the side of the mound of dirt which was ~3' high. On the flat between the mound of dirt and the hole was two splitters set nose to nose. Mom was the splitter and she split the wood. In the hole was parked a truck capable of holding 7 or 10 face cords of wood depending on which truck they were loading. Mom dropped the wood onto the truck and son #2 piled it. Son #2 also helped block wood or drop trees as needed. At noon he would head off to deliver the first 10 cords of wood so as to have the truck empty for afternoon loading. They then filled the 7 cord truck and refilled thge 10 cord truck before calling it a day.
Once cut the wood made progressive steps from higher ground to lower ground to the truck all fed by gravity.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
ruh roh !
Looks like somebody missed the "smiley's"...
Go get 'em Rope
:rockn:
gotcha both
Read the rest of the posts... "7 to 10 cord truck"... by lunch time... with "mom" splitting.
It's obvious that they aren't talking "cord"... they have to be tlaking about "face cord". And if that's the case, a lot of us can claim that production rate.
Using practical math, you just can't achieve the number of splits necessary to accomplish 10 FULL cords in a morning with ANY single splitter.
It's obvious that they aren't talking "cord"... they have to be tlaking about "face cord". And if that's the case, a lot of us can claim that production rate.
Using practical math, you just can't achieve the number of splits necessary to accomplish 10 FULL cords in a morning with ANY single splitter.
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
I'd like to see "The Great Woodsplitter Challenge." People could enter with any machine they wanted. The rules would be simple. Start with any pile of rounds they wanted, big, small, random, whatever. Next to the splitter would be a rack, 4' across the bottom, 4' high sides and a top so as to settle the overfill issue. This would be made out of 2x4s or some other materials, but would hold a set amount of wood that any contestent could build. Lengths should be reasonable ranging from 14" up to 20" depending on the contestent's choice.
Then the games would begin. The contestent would have a witness or more preferably a video camera trained on the rack and the splitter and the time needed to fill the rack would be recorded. Videos would be preferred, but I could also go with a clock attached to the rack and a start and end picture recorded showing the clock times. Time stamps on the photos would also verify the time needed to fill the rack.
Just like the "rounds vs splits, which takes up more room" debate, I am willing to do my part to put this darn issue to rest once and fer all.
The dude or dudette that can verifiably fill their rack the fastest gets to claim "Fastest Woodsplitter on AS." We could even have two categories, machine and hand split.
Anyone game? I got Davec's SS and a nice random pile of wood for the SS data point. I got video and still cameras to so as to keep my side honest.
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
Yep, face cords. This is in CNY where nobody sells by the full cord. Both splitters are also single wedge, too. No 4-way wedges.
The valves are set on each splitter so the lady starts the ram and it continues through the full stroke and then retracts on its own. So she loads ones spitter and goes and fills the other one and drops the splits onto the truck.The trucks are stake rack trucks just under 8' wide inside the racks, so the wood gets piled about 4'4"-4'6" to account for not being 8' wide and for settling on the way to delivery.
Day in and day out this family is the most productive and consistent I have ever seen in a firewood operation. Because they have a dozer to replace the skidder if it breaks, an extra splitter and a few extra saws they never suffer from down time. The 4th person (son #2) does maintainence and runs parts when needed, often while delivering the mid-day load.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
Is this on planet Noproblemos?Yep, face cords. This is in CNY where nobody sells by the full cord. Both splitters are also single wedge, too. No 4-way wedges.
The trucks are stake rack trucks just under 8' wide inside the racks, so the wood gets piled about 4'4"-4'6" to account for not being 8' wide and for settling on the way to delivery.
Day in and day out this family is the most productive and consistent I have ever seen in a firewood operation. Because they have a dozer to replace the skidder if it breaks, an extra splitter and a few extra saws they never suffer from down time. The 4th person (son #2) does maintainence and runs parts when needed, often while delivering the mid-day load.
Is this on planet Noproblemos?
:agree2::agree2::agree2:
Also a thrown cord is not going to be as much as a stacked cord JMO.
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
Face cord, full cord, rick, stove cord, it all depends on what part of the country a person is selling in. Still the challenge is out there, a known measurable quantity of wood that can be split in an amount of time that can be recorded and be posted on Youtube. I would pick a full cord but that will get beyond the limits of what Youtube can handle. 4' by 4' by any reasonable length (14-20") seems like a reasonable compromise. We need to put machine against machine once and fer all.
Toss piles are complete BS as a means of measure and I am willing to throw down a challenge on that part also if we want to carry it that far. That can be part 2.
I don't care where you live... a cord is a cord.
Calling a "face cord" a cord is like calling a yugo a 1-ton pickup truck. It isn't, and never will be. If you want to brag about production rates, at least use proper measuarable terms!
And your basis for competition is flawed. Allowing "any reasonable length (14-20")" isn't a fair competition. the range between 14" and 20" means that some people will be cycling their splitters 6" in and 6" back more on each stroke than others. Set a length... say 16" (since 3 rows 4'high x 8' long would equal a CORD)... and stick to it... anything under 16" is disqualified... anything over is a waste of splitter time. Let's face it, the 4x200m relay uses FOUR people.. not 3-5 people....
Calling a "face cord" a cord is like calling a yugo a 1-ton pickup truck. It isn't, and never will be. If you want to brag about production rates, at least use proper measuarable terms!
And your basis for competition is flawed. Allowing "any reasonable length (14-20")" isn't a fair competition. the range between 14" and 20" means that some people will be cycling their splitters 6" in and 6" back more on each stroke than others. Set a length... say 16" (since 3 rows 4'high x 8' long would equal a CORD)... and stick to it... anything under 16" is disqualified... anything over is a waste of splitter time. Let's face it, the 4x200m relay uses FOUR people.. not 3-5 people....
Similar threads
